With the rumors of Stern backing the Sac bid and doing all that he can do make sure they contend I don't think money is important as a factor than some think. Stern seems to have more pull than some are letting us believe and once I heard that I knew that we were in in trouble. I want to believe and be confident, but I just have a horrible gut feeling that we will be burned again. I mean I know some of you are weary of Ric Bucher, but up until this point he has been pro-Seattle, but after appearing on the Brock Huard show today and saying it still favors Seattle he later puts out a piece about how rumors are that if Sacramento meets a few more needed pieces that they would be favored/recommended to keep the Kings. And truthfully all the positive news about Seattle being the favorite is really only coming from our part of the country nowadays, whereas most other media outlets seem to think that it is more of a toss up. I am probably rambling, but I am feeling sick over the thought of us getting screwed again and just feel that the chances are very high that we do get the raw end of the deal again.

Whether the owners are leaning one way or the other, whether the Malooffs want to sell to Chris Hansen & Co. or not, or whether Sacramento's offer is anywhere close to Seattle's, it all depends on whether that atom has decayed or not.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

pinksheets wrote:The NBA loses money by keeping the team in Sacramento.

The team isn't worth, in Sacramento, the amount needed to buy the team.

It's arithmetic. I just don't buy into the NBA being charitable, which is what keeping a team in a market with no spending power and no potential for a large television deal is, charity.

Well unfortunately Stern doesn't seem to care about that as he has to help out his boy KJ like he did with Bennett and we all know that there are owners out that, especially those that have been owners longer, will side with Stern when push comes to shove, well at least I think so.

Trust Chris Hansen. He has done his work for the past 2 years to make this happen. He has come through every time we needed him to. Just relax, try to be half as calm, cool, and collected as Hansen is right now. This is business.

pinksheets wrote:Trust Chris Hansen. He has done his work for the past 2 years to make this happen. He has come through every time we needed him to. Just relax, try to be half as calm, cool, and collected as Hansen is right now. This is business.

I'm a Seattle sports fan, the word relax is foreign to me lol. I'd be more calm if Stern wasn't all for Sac as well as having to constantly listen to Sac-Town talk on our own airwaves whereas H/B/N can't/won't say anything and Chris Daniels seems to be the only media head saying positive things about Seattle.

pinksheets wrote:Trust Chris Hansen. He has done his work for the past 2 years to make this happen. He has come through every time we needed him to. Just relax, try to be half as calm, cool, and collected as Hansen is right now. This is business.

I'm a Seattle sports fan, the word relax is foreign to me lol. I'd be more calm if Stern wasn't all for Sac as well as having to constantly listen to Sac-Town talk on our own airwaves whereas H/B/N can't/won't say anything and Chris Daniels seems to be the only media head saying positive things about Seattle.

And Chris Daniels hasn't been wrong yet, as far as I can tell. Daniels puts out the good and the bad, but he doesn't spin. He's a well respected journalist.

The news about Hansen applying for a master use permit with intentions of breaking ground in November is pretty big. Sacramento wouldn't be likely to even have a finalized arena agreement by then.

Another thing to point out, since Sacramento wants to play the "WE'RE SO LOYAL" card, if the NBA cares about its fanfare. I was talking to a friend who lives in NY, and he told me that the Sonics were kind of iconic, and no one even thinks about the Kings unless their team is playing 'em.

Anyone else think that Stern is getting involved with helping the Sacramento group in an effort to drive up the price of the Kings that Hansen & Co. will eventually pay, thus raising the perceived values of the other franchises for the rest of the owners?

SeatownJay wrote:Anyone else think that Stern is getting involved with helping the Sacramento group in an effort to drive up the price of the Kings that Hansen & Co. will eventually pay, thus raising the perceived values of the other franchises for the rest of the owners?

I think he could, I think the NBA though is testing this Sacramento group thats been all talk and no action though with this deadline that comes at 5pm.

And if we don't get the team, you guys can blame me because of my purchase of this iphone, I am sorry Mr. Ballmer.

From that article: "Though the NBA clearly wants another franchise in Seattle, which lost the Sonics to Oklahoma City five years ago after similar and protracted arena wranglings, the league is reluctant to abandon Sacramento for a number of reasons, including TV market size (20th), proven viability and history of fan support, potential for economic and population growth, and lack of competition (the Kings are the only major-league sports franchise in town)."

Really? They'd push for keeping the Kings in the 20th-ranked television market instead of allowing a move to the 14th largest market?

I'm sorry, but when you list staying in the 20th largest TV market over moving to the 14th largest, you lose a teenie-tiny bit of credibility there. Oh, and we can probably compare Seattle's history of fan support, and potential for economic and population growth too, while we're at it.

"The ultimate number is W's, and that’s what matters in Santa Clara. As such, Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does." - Paul Gutierrez

There is more money to be had in Seattle. Plain and simple. If the NBA turns us down because of sentimentality reasons and charity cases (which the Kings are) for an unstable ownership that isn't willing to commit, they deserve all hardships that will be coming their way.

----------------------------"Plus I hate the seattle stadium the **** place is too loud, gave me a headache watchin the game." ~ Some 9er fan

I don't see how Sacramento, in a nearly bankrupt state, can provide the kind of economic growth and vitality that Seattle does. Seattle is kind of booming right now, can Sacramento say the same thing?

To me, vetoing the purchase agreement is not a decision with the best interests in mind of the NBA. All it has to do with is Stern's legacy. He doesn't want another team to move on his watch. Long term and short term, getting the Sonics back is huge for the NBA. Its a good tv market, the ownership group is extremely solid. Seattle is a city with a vibrant basketball community with plenty of players currently in the NBA. If the NBA never comes back, they are losing out on a lot all in the name of David Stern. This guy fixes games to maximize revenue, but isn't going to do this? It's ridiculous.

I know its the Sacbee, but they have multiple articles out now saying that if KJ's group matches the offer that they would be more than happy to do business with them and keep them in Sacramento. I hate this stupid rollercoaster ride.............

From that article: "Though the NBA clearly wants another franchise in Seattle, which lost the Sonics to Oklahoma City five years ago after similar and protracted arena wranglings, the league is reluctant to abandon Sacramento for a number of reasons, including TV market size (20th), proven viability and history of fan support, potential for economic and population growth, and lack of competition (the Kings are the only major-league sports franchise in town)."

Really? They'd push for keeping the Kings in the 20th-ranked television market instead of allowing a move to the 14th largest market?

I'm sorry, but when you list staying in the 20th largest TV market over moving to the 14th largest, you lose a teenie-tiny bit of credibility there. Oh, and we can probably compare Seattle's history of fan support, and potential for economic and population growth too, while we're at it.

True but they maybe trying to have their cake and eat it too. What if Stern in the back his mind has alternative plan and is using the Seattle deal to force Sac to build an arena? Bobcats?

Blitzer88 wrote:I know its the Sacbee, but they have multiple articles out now saying that if KJ's group matches the offer that they would be more than happy to do business with them and keep them in Sacramento. I hate this stupid rollercoaster ride.............

Blitzer88 wrote:I know its the Sacbee, but they have multiple articles out now saying that if KJ's group matches the offer that they would be more than happy to do business with them and keep them in Sacramento. I hate this stupid rollercoaster ride.............

If you're willing to believe a news source that has struck out more often than its hit, I dunno what to tell you but to take Pinks advice and get off the computer for a week. Seriously, you don't find it funny that every time something goes against Sacramento, they come out with a "we meant for this to happen, and this is a good thing," statement? This is a dog and pony show coming out of Sac, nothing more. PR 101. Cut the "woe is me" attitude that has developed from Seattle sports fans.

----------------------------"Plus I hate the seattle stadium the **** place is too loud, gave me a headache watchin the game." ~ Some 9er fan

From that article: "Though the NBA clearly wants another franchise in Seattle, which lost the Sonics to Oklahoma City five years ago after similar and protracted arena wranglings, the league is reluctant to abandon Sacramento for a number of reasons, including TV market size (20th), proven viability and history of fan support, potential for economic and population growth, and lack of competition (the Kings are the only major-league sports franchise in town)."

Really? They'd push for keeping the Kings in the 20th-ranked television market instead of allowing a move to the 14th largest market?

I'm sorry, but when you list staying in the 20th largest TV market over moving to the 14th largest, you lose a teenie-tiny bit of credibility there. Oh, and we can probably compare Seattle's history of fan support, and potential for economic and population growth too, while we're at it.

True but they maybe trying to have their cake and eat it too. What if Stern in the back his mind has alternative plan and is using the Seattle deal to force Sac to build an arena? Bobcats?

I've wondered about that too, that Seattle gets used by the league for a bit to scare other cities into building new arenas before getting a bone thrown our way.

Blitzer88 wrote:I know its the Sacbee, but they have multiple articles out now saying that if KJ's group matches the offer that they would be more than happy to do business with them and keep them in Sacramento. I hate this stupid rollercoaster ride.............

They can say they have the money but if they do why havent they made a BINDING offer yet??Hint: because they dont have enough money yet. The only card Sac has to play is the senimental card.

seahawk2k wrote:If this turns into a bidding war, the team is coming to seattle. Sacramento doesn't have the pockets to match if it gets to that. I definitely feel like we are going to get screwed here though.

It makes horrible business sense for the Kings to stay in Sacramento, but the NBA doesn't really care about that.

I beg to differ. The NBA owners are businessmen who will be making a hell of a lot of $ if the Kings become the Supersonics.

SacHawk2.0 wrote:After having the Sonics ripped away from Seattle the lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves for wishing the same thing in another city.

For shame.

Dont hate the player, hate the game (ie the NBA).This is David Stern's NBA, they set precedent by letting Clay Clay move our team. There is an easy way out for the NBA, immediate expansion. Lets see if the NBA is smart enough to figure that one out,

SeatownJay wrote:Anyone else think that Stern is getting involved with helping the Sacramento group in an effort to drive up the price of the Kings that Hansen & Co. will eventually pay, thus raising the perceived values of the other franchises for the rest of the owners?

Yes, since you asked, that thought did cross my mind. Stern could be inflaming a bidding war because the more the team is sold for, regardless of whether they play in Sac or Seattle, the more all the rest of the NBA teams will be worth. It's like a house on your block selling for a million dollars - all the rest of the houses are worth more.

I'm feelin that boy Blitzer88 - ha ha. I think he's pessemistic out of psychic self-defense - hope for the best and expect the worst. We've still got another week on the roller-coaster, too. There could be some kind of resolution when the deadline passes - I hope that puts you at ease a bit, Blitzer. God - I love dashes.

Throwdown wrote:They've notified the nba that they will match, up that offer Hansen, screw these boys

I am a poker player, I smell a bluff...... I'm calling Sac's handLets see that BINDING offer, Sacramento has said a lot of things that havent happened to be true and have missed every deadline so far, IMHO they are trying to by some more time. Plus I'm sure the the Hanson/Balmer/Nordstrom group has a plan B if true, which I doubt it is.

Throwdown wrote:Reading SonicsRising, anyone catch that Peter Holt, Owner the Spurs and Chairman of the BOG went in Pro Sacramento and came out Pro Seattle on the 3rd?

Yeah, but Stern is so anti-Seattle. He's doing all he can to prevent us from getting a team, even when the financials make so much more sense...

Tust me I hate Stern more than anyone here....But....Stern works for the owners and is leaving soon, his power is dwindling by the second. The NBA would be commiting financial suicide by choosing a lesser deal in Sactown over Seattle unless there is immediate expansion.